Based on your experiences, describe the differences identities of Copenhagen’s public and private greenspaces.
Both public and private greenspaces provide similar benefits, but differ in how they are managed. Ørstedsparken as seen yesterday is a great example of a public park. This park has no entrance fee, and anyone can come and spend time in this space. People of all different social statuses and demographics are welcome to access the park. It is an environmentally just establishment, because it does not discriminate against members of society. Everyone should be able to access nature when they please, no matter what their background is. Public parks allow people to do exactly that, which then creates a sense of community within a city.
Ørstedsparken
In comparison, private parks may lack the same sense of community found in public parks. Owning or accessing a private park can be quite restrictive for people of lower income and social statues. Everyone should be able to access nature if they please, and if all greenspaces were private parks, many people would be left out.
However, a drawback of public parks is that they have the ability to become polluted, vandalized, and not taken care of well with lack of restriction and infrequent routine maintenance, for example, Østre Aniceg. Private parks on the other hand, such as the allotment gardens of Frederiksberg, are maintained and taken care of by the individual owner.
Østre Aniceg
Frederiksberg Allotment Garden
But what both public and private parks have in common are their functions—health, recreation, and environmental stewardship. Urban greenspaces, whether public or private, sequester airborne pollutants and improve air quality, provide habitat for flora and fauna, and improve our overall well-being.
No comments:
Post a Comment